Or: How to learn to stop worrying about liberals and love the bomb

If, over this past year, you've been feeling rather oppressed by the pinko atheist left wing media elite, ponder this: It could have been worse! There are many stories that were successfully filtered, censored and/or withheld from the public by our protectors in the board rooms that control our media outlets. Let's look at some of the stories that received virtually no attention in 2004, while thanking the stars for sparing us.

Here are some headlines them America-hating liberals would just love to get out:

A series of reports released in 2003 by the UN and other global economy analysis groups warn that further increases in the imbalance in wealth throughout the world will have catastrophic effects if left unchecked. UN-habitat reports that unless governments work to control the current unprecedented spread in urban growth, a third of the world's population will be slum dwellers within 30 years. Currently, almost one-sixth of the world's population lives in slum-like conditions.

As if this were a problem! Don't them liberals know that people paying rent are much more obedient than people who own their own homes? Just what we need are a bunch of uppity blasphemers and heathens, thinking that they have rights in this world!

Attorney General John Ashcroft is seeking to strike down one of the worldâ€™s oldest human rights laws, the Alien Torts Claim Act (ATCA) which holds government leaders, corporations, and senior military officials liable for human rights abuses taking place in foreign countries.

For crying out loud! Don't them liberals know that personal responsibility is for the peasants, not for the players?!

Critics charge that the Bush Administration is purging, censoring, and manipulating scientific information in order to push forward its pro-business, anti-environmental agenda. In Washington, D.C. more than 60 of the nationâ€™s top scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, and former federal agency directors, issued a statement on February 18, 2004 accusing the Bush Administration of deliberately distorting scientific results for political ends and calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking.

Them liberals are always harping on this science stuff, as if dissecting a frog is going to help prepare the world for the Second Coming! They don't read the Bible, they don't know nothing! It's good this story was killed. No sense confusing the public with a bunch of facts!

Civilian populations in Afghanistan and Iraq and occupying troops have been contaminated with astounding levels of radioactive depleted and non-depleted uranium as a result of post-9/11 United Statesâ€™ use of tons of uranium munitions. Researchers say surrounding countries are bound to feel the effects as well.

In 2003 scientists from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) studied urine samples of Afghan civilians and found that 100% of the samples taken had levels of non-depleted uranium (NDU) 400% to 2000% higher than normal levels. The UMRC research team studied six sites, two in Kabul and others in the Jalalabad area. The civilians were tested four months after the attacks in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies.

NDU is more radioactive than depleted uranium (DU), which itself is charged with causing many cancers and severe birth defects in the Iraqi populationâ€“especially childrenâ€“over the past ten years. Four million pounds of radioactive uranium was dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone. Uranium dust will be in the bodies of our returning armed forces. Nine soldiers from the 442nd Military Police serving in Iraq were tested for DU contamination in December 2003. Conducted at the request of The News, as the U.S. government considers the cost of $1,000 per affected soldier prohibitive, the test found that four of the nine men were contaminated with high levels of DU, likely caused by inhaling dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops. Several of the men had traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, that are produced only in a nuclear reaction process.

Most American weapons (missiles, smart bombs, dumb bombs, bullets, tank shells, cruise missiles, etc.) contain high amounts of radioactive uranium. Depleted or non-depleted, these types of weapons, on detonation, release a radioactive dust which, when inhaled, goes into the body and stays there. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Basically, itâ€™s a permanently available contaminant, distributed in the environment, where dust storms or any water nearby can disperse it. Once ingested, it releases subatomic particles that slice through DNA.

UMRCâ€™s Field Team found several hundred Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large, dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact, an acrid smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat and upper respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented identical symptom profiles and chronologies. The victims reported symptoms including pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems and disorientation.

This is just the kind of liberal talk that undermines our troops! These scientists should be supporting our troops instead of criticizing their health! And them Afganistanicans and Iraqians getting sick, well, sometimes there's a price for freedom! They should be thanking us!

You know, I could go on, commenting on all these news stories that the liberal elite tried to get past our corporate protectors. But it's just too darned exhausting. After a while, things just start to seep in.

So here are links to some other news stories that them liberals never managed to get out. (Losers!) When you read, be very careful. They're sneaky-like and will try to confuse you with facts. If you're not careful, if you're not ever vigilant, you may end up learning something, and then where would you be?

Every day, your Coalition is busy fighting to make your voice heard in the halls of power here in Washington, DC. Our job is to make sure that when our United States Congressmen and Senators consider the vital issues of the day, the Christian perspective is always part of the decision-making process.

We are your representatives on Capitol Hill, and our office is always open to you for information, updates on current events and legislation, and as a point of contact with our nationâ€™s elected and appointed officials.

Your Coalition has put together one of the most effective lobbying teams operating in the nationâ€™s capital. They have a powerful impact on the national political discourse, and are achieving a remarkable record of success. I am very pleased to briefly introduce our Legislative Director to you.

Please keep our wonderful Christian lobbyists in your prayers. They are literally ambassadors for the Kingdom, your ministers in a most challenging mission field!

God bless you,
Roberta Combs, President

Forgive my ignorance, dear readers. I had no idea that lobbyists could be Messengers from God. Then again, apparently I have no idea what it means to be Christian.

You thought Jesus Christ's message was peace and forgiveness? You thought the Bible's valuable message pertains to love thy neighbor and blessed are the meek?

Apparently you haven't read the Book of Roberta. Rather than the entire PowerPoint presentation, you can catch up by reviewing the agenda of these "ambassadors for the Kingdom" (annotated to clarify the religious message):

1. Making permanent President Bush's 2001 federal tax cuts, including the marriage penalty tax cut
[Blessed are the rich, for the fruits of their non-labor shall trickle down to the poor.]

2. Getting votes in the first session of the 108th Congress to confirm President Bush's judicial nominations.
[Blessed are the unforgiving, for they shall never let innocence get in the way of punishment.]

3. Help pass Senator Charles Schumer's bipartisan 'Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act,' the SPAM Act, S. 1231.
[Blessed are the censors, for by deciding what we can see and read, they shall protect our ignorance.]

5. Passing Majority Whip Roy Blunt's and Democrat Congressman Harold Ford's 'Charitable Giving Act of 2003,' H.R. 7.
[Blessed are the itemizers, for when they give, they also receive.]

6. Passing Congressman Spencer Bachus' and Senator Jon Kyl's 'Internet Gambling Enforcement Act'.
[Blessed are the legal lotteries, for the winnings from the low-income players make up for the tax cuts to the rich.]

7. Getting a vote on Congressman Henry Brown's 'Child Pornography Prevention Constitutional Amendment' in both the House and Senate.
[Blessed are the redundant, who spend millions passing laws against things already illegal.]

8. Passing Congressman Walter Jones' 'Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act.'
[Blessed are the preachers of proper political persuasion, for they include the Book of Roberta in the Bible.]

9. Passing Congressman Robert Aderholt's 'Ten Commandments Display Act', H.R. 2045
[Blessed are those of weak faith, who need the government to enforce their faith with graven images on walls of secular power.]

10. Passing the anti-cloning bill, including Senator Sam Brownback's bill in the U.S. Senate
[Blessed are the Luddites, for they know a tool of Satan when they see it.]

11. Passing Congresswoman Melissa Hart's and Senator Mike DeWine's 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act'
[Blessed are the unborn, for they are life while the mother is not.]

12. Passing the 'Child Custody Protection Act in the House and Senate
[Blessed are the fathers, for they own the wombs of their daughters, and sometimes prove it.]

13. Getting a vote on Congressman Ernest Istook's 'Prayer and Pledge' Constitutional Amendment
[Blessed are the doctrinarians, who understand that the Constitution of the United States is Satan's work.]

14. Support Support Congressman Frank Lucas' 'Pledge of Allegiance Constitutional Amendment'
[Blessed are the really strict doctrinarians, for fascism is the only way to salvation.]

15. Support Congressman Todd Akin's 'Hands off the Pledge of Allegiance, Federal Courts' bill
[Blessed are the exception-makers, for they believe that laws of the land should not apply to everybody.]

16. Prohibit special civil rights protection based on sexual preference/'domestic partners'.
[Blessed are the bigots, who measure by their own insecurities and intolerances the rights of other citizens.]

17. Supporting legislation allowing parental choice in education
[Blessed are the ignorance advocates, for they see education as the path to liberalism (Satanism).]

18. Supporting legislation barring adoptions of children by homosexuals
[Blessed are the sexually insecure, for without laws and public scorn, they might choose to be homosexual.]

19. Supporting legislation prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag of the United States of America.
[Blessed are the idolators, for they know that the burning bush probably garbled God's message.]

Now that we know what Christianity really means, we can finally embrace real Christian values and forget all that liberal crap we learned in Sunday school.

With all this talk of "moral values," I wonder if we have any sort of future. The surge of intolerance of late is quite daunting, especially when you have religious leaders thumping the Bible as their authority for marginalizing or incarcerating entire groups of people (much like the mullas who thump on the Q'uran to incite boys to murder-suicide rampages). There seems to be no reasoning with them.

Make the suggestion that gay marriage does not affect their own marriages in any way, and they thump on the Bible and call you anti-Christian. Make the suggestion that the best way to reduce abortion is to empower women over their own reproductive systems, and they thump on the Bible and call you an inciter of promiscuity. Make the suggestion that a woman should have as much control over her own body as a man does over his, and they thump on the Bible and call you a murderer. And they will append to these and anything else that rolls off their tongues the ultimate accusation: "Liberal!"

Is the Bible a valid authority for civic decisions in this country? If so, which Bible? Old Testament or New? King James version or a more accurate translation from the Greek? With the Apocrypha? What about the Book of Mormon? What about the Torah or the Q'uran? No? What about the Book of J? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Is Luther the authoritative voice, or would it be John? What about Hinduism or Buddhism or Taoism? What about Wicca? Should we also count Scientology? The Hare Krishnas? What about the religions of the aboriginal peoples here?

Isn't turning to the Bible just asking for trouble? This country was founded upon dissent by people who did not want government telling them how to live. We've come a long way from those days of slavery and lack of suffrage â€” but I submit that is not because of the Bible but because this country has a secular government.

I turn to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's a slippery slope to start setting entire demographic classes of citizens into separate categories, and try to bend this Amendment to suit the intolerances of various majorities. It was a long haul to get away from those codified bigotries, and it's been a long haul since then for the people to catch up to the spirit and justice codified in the Constitution.

But now we have a very vocal, brazen, shameless effort to drag the country back to the 18th Century, when some citizens were more equal than others. The various laws against homosexual unions passed in the eleven states this past November are certain to come up for judicial review, and almost certainly will be found wanting in terms of equal protection (though nothing is certain given the partisanship of many of the Supreme Court Justices).

So now the advocates of intolerance are seeking to change the Constitution, so that their attitudes, based largely on religious doctrine, if we're to take them at their word, can be enforced by all the power of the government.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This is what the "marraige amendment" folks want to change in the Constitution. (There's a strange blindness about this issue in many quarters, including the African American churches. Maybe they don't see that the same logic could be applied to miscegenation, too. I'm sure some of the might very well be delighted at that prospect, but it's a rather slippery slope. Are we to open up the Constitution to amendment to appease the fears and intolerances of every majority class? I wonder of the "good white folk" would like that when Latinos become the largest ethnic group in this nation?)

Of course, there's one minor detail that those "moral values" folks out there fail to respect:

Article VI. - The United States

...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That means the Constitution, not the Bible, is the law of the land. But if that's not literal enough, Article VI continues:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis mine]

Not only was the United States not conceived as a "Christian nation," the Founders in fact were very suspcious of any attempts to make any religion a part of the government. Of course, to make things even more clear, they passed Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The deal is: the government won't make you worship in any particular way for any particular faith, but you in turn cannot make the government make anyone else worship in any particular way for any particular faith, either.

That is why religious justifications for civic matters of concern are inappropriate in our wonderful republic.

Why cannot we find common ground upon which we can agree? I submit that it's because evangelical leaders have made humanist values â€” "liberal" values â€” out to be evil. We cannot even agree upon reducing teen pregnancy because unless we embrace Jesus Christ, we are labeled as immoral and unfit to even engage in discussion. This pose is exacerbated by clowns like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who make comfortable livings off of vilifying fellow citizens. Are they likely to sneeze at the nipple that feeds them? Not likely. (Wonkette holds out hope for Tucker Carlson. I remain skeptical.)

Case in point: I came across this little graphic shortly after the election (forgive me, I've completely forgotten whose blog alerted me to this):

Note where the "red states" fall in comparison with the "blue states." If results talk, it seems that it's the more Bible-oriented, "moral values"-based approach to teen pregnancy that is leading to more abortions, while the secular approaches of the "blue states" (with such "radical" approaches as providing sex education and access to condoms) seem to be much more effective in actually reducing teen pregnancy and abortion.

In light of this, how can the evangelical radical right blame "liberalism" for all the abortions in this country? Easy. Just thump on the Bible.

Kudos to the radical right for making Americans more afraid of gays than of Osama bin Laden. Appealing to people's fears, the Karl Rove machine drew out the vote in several key states, including Ohio, and got their candidate, who expressed so well those homophobic attitudes, re-elected.

What I find shocking is how people, including the media, the politicians and even thoughtful political thinkers and observers, so easily have fallen into an easy, passive and/or intimidated acceptance of what, to me, seems like a rather obvious instance of the majority trying to oppress the minority in a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause or the Amendment providing "equal protection of the laws," as stated in the United States Constitution. Isn't it curious how mainstream something like anti-homosexual attitudes have become, such that (presumably) reasonable people automatically backpedal away from any judgment of such attitudes, as if homophobia were just another political plank, like tax policy or term limits? In fact, it seems that homophobia has become politically correct.

I confess that the use of 'homophobe' as an epithet troubles me even more than that of 'racist' or 'anti-semite'.Â Unlike the latter terms, 'homophobe' does not merely characterize someone as prejudiced; it suggests a psychological diagnosis of his attitude.Â Now, I believe that some such diagnosis can be literally true: some people really do have a neurotic aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals.Â The standard explanation of homophobia is that it is what psychoanalysts call a reaction formation: the homophobe is repressing his own homosexual thoughts and feelings by mounting an excessive aversion to that which, in fact, fascinates or attracts him.Â I take this explanation seriously.Â But for that very reason, I take the term 'homophobia' to have a descriptive content more specific than that of 'racism' or 'anti-semitism', and this descriptive content makes the term especially problematic when used as an epithet.

One problem with the term is that it can imply that the anti-homosexual is himself a repressed homosexual, thus implicitly branding him with his own iron, so to speak.Â The stigma of being a homophobe then incorporates the stigma of being a homosexual, the very stigma the term is supposedly meant to combat.Â I don't see how we can combat a stigma by covertly applying it.

The main problem, though, is that the term 'homophobia' isn't serious.Â Contrast 'homophobia' with 'xenophobia', which we apply when we literally mean that someone is motivated by irrational fear and suspicion of foreigners.Â We don't go calling people xenophobic for holding just any bias against immigrants, much less narrow-minded opinions on the subject of immigration.Â But people are nowadays called homophobic for all sorts of attitudes, whose actual motives the speaker is in no position to diagnose.Â When the term is thrown around in this way, it sounds like mere psychology-as-insult, too close for my comfort to calling someone mentally ill or retarded.

Like racism and anti-semitism, prejudice against homosexuals takes many different forms and has many different sources.Â No one seriously believes that every instance of anti-homosexual bias is or resembles a phobia.

It's this last sentence that strikes me as naÃ¯ve. My own deconstruction of the word "homophobia" leads to a reading as "fear of same [-sex orientation"] â€” or: fear of homosexuals and or homosexuality. By definition, homophobia is about fear. Is this also the source of anti-homosexual bias? Let's examine further.

Can person A truly have reasonable, considered objections to what person B does in the bedroom? Can person A have truly reasonable, considered justifications for using that bedroom behavior as a litmus test for which rights that person shall have? I wonder. When I think about gays, I don't see the big deal. When I first moved to New York, I think I probably knew of maybe five homosexual men altogether â€” and one of them was Liberace â€” so it's not like I was raised among gays and thus am just speaking from some marginal, unusual exposure during childhood. I just don't see why anyone should feel threatened by gays.

My hunch is that this is really about gay men. Everyone knows how men get all turned on by seeing two women kissing. A threesome with two gals does not threaten a man's view of himself. On the contrary. No, this is about the queer guys.

Consider: The loudest cries we've been hearing against homosexuality have come from men and patriarchal cultures such as churches, the military and competitive athletics. Should this be a surprise? Any woman versed in Man knows something about the fragile male ego; many women (and men) have seen how uncomfortable men can get when around homosexuals, or just talking about homosexuality â€” the jokes, the nervous laughter, the macho posturing, or perhaps the jibes, the abusive ridicule, the aggressive posturing. (Hint: It's about fear of penetration. Straight men cannot fathom it, and don't trust men who actually do it â€” possibly to them!)

So here we have homo - phobia. Where does this homophobia lead? Often the stuff considered "harmless" by its perpetrators: jokes, ridicule, verbal taunts. But what about when tangible bias or violence is done? Does this suddenly transcend the fear in homophobia?

When a man gets all worked up over another man â€” gets worked up to the point of giving verbal abuse or inflicting physical harm â€” what is he doing but acting on fear? If he's not afraid, why should he go out of his way to attack another? "He could be trying to fit in with the group," I hear someone say. Well, dear readers, that is a good point. Maybe the gang members attacking the gay man are just trying to impress each other. But let us not forget why the gang even started this attack: one or more fears the gay man, for whatever reason, and the others join in because they buy into this same mindset enough to feel that the gay man is worthy of beating.

As for the good, obedient servant to such a culture, such as the church-going parishoner who may not have any personal feelings either way about homosexuality yet nevertheless disapproves of homosexuality because he or she is told she must disapprove, he or she is still representing a homophobic culture and expressing homophobic attitudes. Not everyone committing anti-homosexual bias is a homophobe per se, but he or she is expressing homophobic attitudes. Is that any better, really?

And I just sigh, wondering why they are all so afraid.

People can misuse any word, including "homophobe." To me, that does not disqualify the word from being accurate in most cases.

What I think David V and so many other men and women should do is spend more time examining their own fears and the origins of the fear-based attitudes codified by their patriarchal organizations, and spend less time defending them. If they weren't so afraid, this wouldn't even be an issue.

The scenes of suffering in the area of the Bay of Bengal are horrifying. I find myself furious as to the cheap, miserly, uncaring response from the United States. $15 million? Less than Dick Cheney's tax break. Less than the cost of one cruise missile. And compared with the ongoing costs of Bush's obscenity, the invasion of Iraq, well, you do the math:

Colin Powell's whining plaint that the US has given so much in the past is cold comfort to the people trying to survive without drinking water or shelter. He talks like a banker, not a human being.

Is he really such a cold-hearted asshole? Or is he being the good soldier spouting what he's told by the beast?

Updated to add that the US has offered a $35 million line of credit, so that devastated nations can borrow money to mount emergency relief efforts. Gee, that's awfully white of you, Bush Co. Where's the "compassion" in your conservatism? Where's your Christian charity?